Totenkindly
@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 52,170
- MBTI Type
- BELF
- Enneagram
- 594
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
Watched Jupiter Ascending so my son could see it -- he's trying to do a Wachowski thing before Matrix 4 comes out.
Yes, this movie took a lot of flak when it came out. However, it had a lot of potential and it's disappointing in how it failed. I see it as having a few basic problems that unfortunately undermine the whole film.
1. Uncertainty about what kind of film it is supposed to be. This is its largest issue. The actors themselves are at cross-purposes -- some are playing to one tone, and others are playing a different kind of film. Was it supposed to be a serious space epic or was it supposed to be a campy / quirky film not to be taken that seriously, despite a few serious ideas buried in it? There are obvious lines of dialogue that were supposed to be funny, but people deliver them straight. Even just seeing Tatum in dog ears should be a joke, not a serious point.
2. Casting / Direction of said cast. After rewatching this, I really think Mila Kunis belongs in the category of actress that "needs strong direction" to succeed. I feel like she got this very well in Black Swan, but here she was pretty much just tossed onto the sets. Channing Tatum might be another. He's actually had some strong performances dramatically (e.g., Foxcatcher + others) but you have to really get across what the intent is I think for him to invest. I feel like Eddie Redmayne was viewing the film more as camp and his performance (if viewed dramatically) will scan as silly but in the vein of a campy movie is spot on... he followed his instincts.
3. Dialogue that really punches up what the intent was. My son and I were cracking jokes during the film about what the dialogue SHOULD have been, to accentuate the comedy. If they had had the courage to really play into the silliness of things, you can walk a line that is both silly and magnificent in its opulence. The Wachowskis just never got to rework the script to be at its best or maybe they weren't as committed to a tone as they needed to be. The bad scores from audience comes from portraying silly ideas or lines of dialogue in a way that seems they are supposed to be taken seriously -- so they automatically fail to be taken seriously. This could have been a midnight-showing cult film for years to come if they had really doubled down on the Silly Quotient.
4. Lack of Agency for the Protagonist. Jupiter is a wet noodle through the entire film, almost. She has no agency and is just bounced from one scene to the next, confused and with no personal direction. She finally shows a bit of spine at the very end of the film, smashing an iPad on the ground and groining / beating Eddie Redmayne with a pipe, but otherwise she's just completely uninteresting, confused, and powerless. It's almost hard to believe this is a Wachowski film, with the lack of agency for its female lead.
I think I would have liked the whole film more if it had been in vein of the credentials scene, where Jupiter is assigned a representative (Advocate Bob -- even the name is silly), and Samuel Barnett perfectly nails his role as the advocate. At first you can tell he's ecstatic to be given this assignment and he believes it's a big opportunity to prove himself. Then as he is slowly dragged through the bureaucratic ringer, he is trying to maintain his cheerfulness on the surface while becoming increasingly frustrated with the process and about ready to lose his shit. Finally he becomes cynical and starts bribing people, all while pretending (transparently) to be on the level. When he succeeds eventually, he is beaming like a cherub at his success. it's a great comedic performance and totally conveys what could have been done with better direction. (Of course, capping it with Terry Gilliam playing an eccentric old tinkering troll of a man is a perfect ending.) They should have tinkered with the dialogue by making more lines actually pretty silly / over the top and directed the actors so that they'd be in on the joke.
Yes, this movie took a lot of flak when it came out. However, it had a lot of potential and it's disappointing in how it failed. I see it as having a few basic problems that unfortunately undermine the whole film.
1. Uncertainty about what kind of film it is supposed to be. This is its largest issue. The actors themselves are at cross-purposes -- some are playing to one tone, and others are playing a different kind of film. Was it supposed to be a serious space epic or was it supposed to be a campy / quirky film not to be taken that seriously, despite a few serious ideas buried in it? There are obvious lines of dialogue that were supposed to be funny, but people deliver them straight. Even just seeing Tatum in dog ears should be a joke, not a serious point.
2. Casting / Direction of said cast. After rewatching this, I really think Mila Kunis belongs in the category of actress that "needs strong direction" to succeed. I feel like she got this very well in Black Swan, but here she was pretty much just tossed onto the sets. Channing Tatum might be another. He's actually had some strong performances dramatically (e.g., Foxcatcher + others) but you have to really get across what the intent is I think for him to invest. I feel like Eddie Redmayne was viewing the film more as camp and his performance (if viewed dramatically) will scan as silly but in the vein of a campy movie is spot on... he followed his instincts.
3. Dialogue that really punches up what the intent was. My son and I were cracking jokes during the film about what the dialogue SHOULD have been, to accentuate the comedy. If they had had the courage to really play into the silliness of things, you can walk a line that is both silly and magnificent in its opulence. The Wachowskis just never got to rework the script to be at its best or maybe they weren't as committed to a tone as they needed to be. The bad scores from audience comes from portraying silly ideas or lines of dialogue in a way that seems they are supposed to be taken seriously -- so they automatically fail to be taken seriously. This could have been a midnight-showing cult film for years to come if they had really doubled down on the Silly Quotient.
4. Lack of Agency for the Protagonist. Jupiter is a wet noodle through the entire film, almost. She has no agency and is just bounced from one scene to the next, confused and with no personal direction. She finally shows a bit of spine at the very end of the film, smashing an iPad on the ground and groining / beating Eddie Redmayne with a pipe, but otherwise she's just completely uninteresting, confused, and powerless. It's almost hard to believe this is a Wachowski film, with the lack of agency for its female lead.
I think I would have liked the whole film more if it had been in vein of the credentials scene, where Jupiter is assigned a representative (Advocate Bob -- even the name is silly), and Samuel Barnett perfectly nails his role as the advocate. At first you can tell he's ecstatic to be given this assignment and he believes it's a big opportunity to prove himself. Then as he is slowly dragged through the bureaucratic ringer, he is trying to maintain his cheerfulness on the surface while becoming increasingly frustrated with the process and about ready to lose his shit. Finally he becomes cynical and starts bribing people, all while pretending (transparently) to be on the level. When he succeeds eventually, he is beaming like a cherub at his success. it's a great comedic performance and totally conveys what could have been done with better direction. (Of course, capping it with Terry Gilliam playing an eccentric old tinkering troll of a man is a perfect ending.) They should have tinkered with the dialogue by making more lines actually pretty silly / over the top and directed the actors so that they'd be in on the joke.
